.1^6 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

019 752 962 



HoIUnger Corp, 
pH8.5 



^^5 




UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA 
DEPARTMENTAL BULLETINS 

Education June, 1911 No. 1 

TWO COLLEGE RULES^ 

By Joseph Kennedy, M. A. 

Professor of Philosophy and Education, and 

Dean of l^eachers College 

Herbert Spencer once wrote a powerful essay on what he 
termed Regiinentation. By this he meant the reducing of all 
kinds of activity, governmental, religious and scholastic, to regi- 
mental uniformity. There are two sources of regimentation, 
viz : that imposed by higher authority upon those below, and 
that sought by people themselves. There is no doubt that there 
is a tendency in strong human nature to impose the former, and 
in weak human nature to take upon itself the latter. Spencet 
al)horred both, for he believed that government best which gov- 
erns least, and that individuals should act as such and not l)e 
mere imitators of forms and fashions. 

But this is not my subject further than it servos asniy key 
note. I would say, however, that all uniformity for the sake 
of uniformity is never a worthy end in itself. Uniformity should 
always ])e a means and not an end. The fallacy of considering it 
an end is too often made. It looks gocnl and is attracti\e to 



''^A Paper read before the Faculty Club of the University^ April 2^^ 
igri. 



Honograp^ 



2 • TWO COLLEGE RULES Xx ^ . ^ 

the regimentally minded. A French minister of education once 
boasted that every pupil in France was studying the same lesson 
at the same time; and the person who prizes individuality and 
free personality is at once prompted to ask, Cm bono? 

It is true that uniformity is a good means toward easy admin- 
istration ; ease or efficiency of administration is nearly always the 
motive behind uniformity, which then often becomes an end in 
itself. Ease and efficiency are good things, but when they are 
regarded as ends we have gotten the cart before the horse. It 
should ever be kept in mind that the maturing of human beings, 
■ human personalities, is the chief end of educational institutions. 
We should never lose sight of the fact that we are confronted 
in our problem of education with a human personality that may 
be made or marred. I often feel that in our administration of 
academic rules and regulations we are too much inclined to re- 
gard the student as a thing, a unit, a name having attached to 
it a negative or a positive connotation derived frequently from 
ill-considered report, often from mere hear-say ; and then to 
apply our rules in a cold-blooded, perfunctory manner, sympa- 
thetically if we feel good that day, and ruthlessly if either our 
breakfast or some other thing has not gone well with us. 

But someone will say that this is not very flattering to a 
body as dignified as a University committee, faculty or council ; 
and that such bodies are far removed from such culinary or other 
disturbing influences. I mean no disrespect to such bodies but 
must insist from a psychologist's point of view as well as from 
experience with men and committees in other walks of life, that 
college professors are just as human and quite as fallible as the 
ordinary man or student in all fields except their own special 
and technical lines. When it comes to a question as to what is 
just in practical life and in particular instances, the college pro- 
fessor has no monopoly on either the theory or the practice of 
justice. In fact, I am inclined to think that many college pro- 
fessors, after years of limitation to their own narrow and 
theoretical field, are often afflicted with a kind of 
mental strabismus which gives some justification to the charge 
that we are somewhat theoretical and visionary. College fac- 
ulties often haggle for hours over small matters and then the 
result is frequently some rule or regulation which is a theoretical 
and purely academic deduction. And then every student who is 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 3 

below the abstract average as expressed in the rule must be 
stretched to fit it or the rule must be stretched to cover the 
student; and so the stretching and the fitting and the covering 
must go merrily on, in order, often to maintain a rule which is 
more honored in the breach than in the observance. In fact we 
sometimes act as if the rules we make are sacred things ; and 
we are as unforgiving of their infractions, and more so than of 
infractions of the ten commandments. We often rise in righteous 
indignation and wonder why any student should dare to forget, 
not to say break, some petty regulation which was made prob- 
ably not for his good at all but for our own convenience. Aye, 
there's the rub — for our own convenience ! No wonder we are 
enraged. 

You will soon begin to think, if you have not already 
thought that, as the man said, I am "making a reference to an 
allusion." This is not the case ; I am pointing a moral at no one, 
but merely painting a crude background for the two concrete 
points which I wish to make. 

We have made two rules this year, one of which, in my 
opinion after considerable reflection, should be abrogated and 
the other modified. The two rules in question are : 

(i). That which withholds graduation and a diploma from 
any student who may have a condition, a failure or an incom- 
plete against him on the books, even in an elective subject, and 
when he has offered equivalent electives and a superabundance of 
credits. This, it seems to me, is un-psychological and unjust. 
(2). That which requires a student, in order to graduate, to 
have as many "honor points" as he has credit-hours, in a mark- 
ing system such as ours, of four passing grades, A, B, C and D, 
with a semester-hour graded C bringing one honor point ; B, two 
points ; A, three points ; and D, none. The D's consequently must 
be offset by a sufficient number of A's and B's. 

(i). Some time ago I wrote the professors of Education in 
about thirty of the leading institutions of the country for 
their opinion of a rule refusing graduation to a student who has 
on the books against him an E, an F or an I in any subject. 
I wrote these men because the study of Education and its prob- 
lems is their special field. The letter gave no indication of my owij 
opinion and was in no way leading. I asked the question and 



4 TWO COLLEGE RULES 

gave the chief reasons for and against the rule. My letter was as 

follows : 

"My dear Sir : 

"Would you approve or disapprove of a college rule which 
says that no student shall be graduated, who has a condition or 
a failure, in any subject, even an elective, on the books against 
him, even if he fulfills all the positive requirements and more? 

"Probably the two strongest arguments, pro and con, in re- 
gard to such a rule would be: 

^'For: A student for moral and disciplinary reasons should 
complete what he undertakes. 

''Against: A student may find after a month, a semester, or 
a year, that a certain elective field is not for him, and is willing 
to forego all claims to credit in it and oflFer some other course 
in which he finds himself." 

I give the portion of each answer that is directly relevant 
The answers are as follows : 

Professor Frederick E. Bolton, Director of the School of 
Education of the University of Iowa, says : "I do not believe 
that a condition or failure in a subject ought to be a bar to grad- 
uation provided the student has the required number of credits 
in other work and that they are of the right quality. Of course, 
i£ there are absolute requirements they should be met. * * * 
In case a student has permission to drop the work, he is not 
marked /failed,' but 'left.' In case he pursues the work through 
the given period and fails to do the work and is not allowed to 
withdraw, he is marked 'failed.' I do not believe that this should 
be a bar against graduation, provided the conditions set forth 
above are met. On the other hand I believe that there should 
be full equivalents in other directions." 

Professor A. W. Trettien of the University of South Dakota 
replies in this way: "My answer to this question may be stated 
as follows : I can think of a condition where a student might 
register in a certain course and find that the course was not 
yielding to him the values that he had anticipated or that his 
line of interest had changed and that he desired to place less 
emphasis upon that line of work than he had formerly anticipated. 
In such a case I should certainly say that a student should be 
graduated even if he has conditions or failures against him in 
certain lines of work. Change of interest very quickly comes into 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 



a student's course with riper judgment and increased maturity 
and the course that a student chooses in his Freshman year may 
not at all be the course that opens his life interest." 

Professor Ellwood P. Cubberly of the Department of Edu- 
cation in Leland Stanford Jr. University writes as follows : "I«i 
reply I should say that I disapprove of such a rule very much. 
While, in a general way, it is best for a student to make up 
work that he fails in, yet there are times, and there are students, 
in which such a rule would do an injustice. The human element 
in college professors is one of the things that always must be 
allowed for, and sometimes it is better for a student to absolutely 
ignore an instructor who has flunked him without any justice to 
it, than to fool around and try to make up such work. Such 
men exist in all faculties, and a hard and fast rule of that kind 
works a hardship on the student more than on the professor. By 
carefully looking over students and teachers, most all of the 
work that ought to be made up can be so done." 

Dean W. Pakenham of the Faculty of Education of the Uni- 
versity of Toronto says : "The 'elective' system, the 'credit' 
system, and the 'conditioned' system have as yet little hold upon 
college life in Ontario. Surrounded by influences and organiza- 
tions which are unfavorable to those systems, my answer to your 
question is obvious, if not defensible. I do not approve of said 
rule." 

Professor E. O. Holland, Professor of Secondary Education 
in the University of Indiana, writes as follows: "I must say 
that I very much disapprove of a college rule which says *no 
student will be graduated, who has a condition or a failure in any 
subject, even an elective.' Of course, any institution should re- 
quire all students to fulfill positive requirements. The University 
of Indiana requires certain work for graduation. This includes 
one year of laboratory science, one year of mathematics, and 
two years of one foreign language or one year of two different 
foreign languages, in addition to requiring forty-five hours in a 
major. Occasionally a student comes to the University, who is 
unable properly to do his work in mathematics. Sometimes I 
have known such a student to be excused. * * * Occasionally, 
too, a mature student is excused from one year of the required 
language work, t believe the University of Indiana maintains a 
high standard, but it does not hesitate to break a rule if the con- 



6 TWO COLLEGE RULES 

ditions justify it. Personally I have more respect for a student 
who drops out of a class after a month and takes up something 
else, than for one who goes into a field quite away from where 
his interest and his ability lie. I am against any rule that is so 
iron-clad that it ignores the right of an individual. 

"I recall very well when I was a student at the University 
of Indiana seventeen years ago. I was induced to take work in 
. My preparation in at that time was not suffi- 
cient to enable me to do the work thoroly. * * ♦ I carried 
the work until the end of the term and then quit, but two or 
three of the better students in the University left the work in 
the middle of the term and then quit aud were conditioned by 
the Professor. As I look at the situation now I believe that 
those students did the proper thing. * * * On the University 
6ooks my record is clean while the three or four men who quit in 
the middle of the term have conditions marked against them; 
but the University did not try to compel! these failures to go back 
into the work and complete their task, and I think the Uni- 
versity was wise in granting freedom to these individuals." 

Dr. Alexis F. Lange, Dean of the faculties of the University 
of California, says : "The University of California has tried this 
rule and found it sadly wanting." Opposite the reason for the 
rule, that for moral and disciplinary reasons a student should 
complete what he undertakes. Dr. Lange writes : 'Too abstract, 
doctrinaire, martinetting." 

Professor Arthur H. Chamberlain of the University of Cal- 
ifornia writes in answer to the question as follows : "It is pos- 
sible that for good reasons a student might want to take up a 
substitute subject after a year or more of work. If a given sub- 
ject was not absolutely essential to the particular line the student 
expects to follow, and if the general quality of work permitted 
I would waive the matter and allow substitution toward gradu- 
ation. It seems to me we should lay no hard and fast rule. The 
Dean should be given discretionary power to determine cases on 
their individual merits. Finally, if we hold strictly to the letter, 
we shall find now and then a case of a student who, for one 
reason or another, can not succeed in passing a subject. He is 
absolutely unfitted for the work. In such case, if the student 
promises well otherwise, allow some other course to be taken." 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 7 

Professor William C. Ruediger of the Department of Educa- 
tion in the George Washington University, Washington, D. C, 
writes as follows in favor of the rule, but does not wish his 
answer to be taken as final till he finds out the practice in other 
institutions : "I am inclined to favor such a rule, but before 
making an absolute decision I should like to know more about 
what the practice is in the various institutions thruout the 
country and how such a rule actually works. How many insti- 
tutions have such a rule? Have any institutions tried the rule 
and found it unsatisfactory? We have no such rule here and in 
the three years I have been here the matter has never definitely 
come up in faculty meeting. I should certainly go so far as 
this : A student before graduating should finish what he under- 
takes, even in elective work, unless he is prevented by prolonged 
sickness or something equally grave." 

Professor H. B. Fine, Dean of the Faculty in Princeton, 
says : "We do not permit a student to graduate who has condi- 
tions of any kind standing against his name, but numerous 
opportunities are given him during his course to remove condi- 
tions; and in the field of elective studies it is permitted to re- 
move a condition in one subject by completing an equivalent 
course in another." 

It will be noticed that in Princeton a 'condition' is removed 
in the elective field by offering a substitute for it, which is the 
very point that I am contending for. 

Dr. Paul H. Hanus of Harvard University evidently did not 
read the question carefully. In answer to the question, ''Would 
you approve or disapprove a college rule which says that no 
student will be graduated who has a condition or a failure in any 
subject, even an elective, on the books against him, even if he 
fulfills all the positive requirements and more?" he merely wrote 
in the margin, "In general, yes, P. H. H." 

Similarly, Professor J. N. Deahl of the University of West 
Virginia merely wrote the word, "No," after the question. 

I am inclined to think that the answer of each of these two 
men refers to the word "approve" rather than to the word "dis- 
approve," for the word "approve" came first in the query. If 
this be so Dr. Hanus is for the rule, "in general," whatever that 
may mean ; while Professor Deahl is unequivocally against it. 



8 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 



A professor in one institution, who merely wrote his answer 
in the margin without signing his name, and the envelope to 
whose letter was inadvertently destroyed, writes in answer to my 
question; "No, I believe that students should complete what they 
undertake but that they should do it without the imposition, ex- 
ternally, of some rule; this is a matter of ideals rather than 
law/' 

Dean George E. Fisher of the University of Pennsylvania, 
to whom my letter was evidexitly referred, wrote as follows : "I 
should approve of a college rule requiring a student to clear his 
record of conditions before being allowed to graduate. If a 
student feels that he will be obliged to do sOj he will be less 
likely to take subjects without the serious purpose of completing 
them satisfactorily. At the same time, I should approve of cancel- 
ling a condition by the substitution for it of work in another 
subject of equal unit value, provided such substitution is approved 
by the proper authorities. This would answer the argument 
against the rule stated, if a student finds that a certain elective 
field is not adapted to his abilities. I believe that every student 
should feel a responsibility for carrying to a successful comple- 
tion any piece of work which he undertakes, unless he can pre- 
sent satisfactory reasons for special considerations." 

It will be noticed that Dr. Fisher says, "I should approve of 
cancelling a condition by the substitution for it of work in 
another subject of equal unit value." That is, again, my con- 
tention. 

Dr. E. L. Thorndyke of Teachers College, Columbia, merely 
writes in the margin : "Disapprove strongly." 

The Registrar of Teachers College Columbia, to whom was 
referred, I think, my letter to Dean Russell writes : "In general, 
we require all students to make good all deficiencies and failures 
in the small list of courses that we require of all students. In 
perhaps three or four instances each year our Committee on In- 
struction allows some substitution to students, whose abilities are 
sharply specialized." 

This means, of course, that all conditions in required 
courses must be made up in the sense of passing them by exam- 
ination or taking them over. But it also means, I think, that even 
in required courses equivalents are occasionally allowed, while 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 9 

the rule under discussion will not allow of equivalents, even in 
elective courses. 

Dr. E. C. Moore of Yale simply wrote in the margin of my 
questionaire : "I would disapprove." 

Dean C. H. Johnston of the University of Kansas also wrote 
in the margin : "Disapprove of such a rule." 

Dean George F. James of the University of Minnesota says : 
"Theoretically your inquiry of October 17th should be answered 
in the negative. If a student registers for any work, he should, 
unless the faculty gives special permission to the contrary, be 
required to complete it. Practically, if a student has completed 
all the work required for graduation, the faculty should, I be- 
lieve, waive any particular condition or failure, "unless the fact 
that the work has not been completed indicates some sort of in- 
subordination or moral obliquity." 

Professor M. V. O'Shea of the University of Wisconsin 
answers as follows : "I wish there might be sufficient plasticity 
in the administration of a student's course so that if he did not 
complete some one subject, but showed high grade ability and 
perseverance in other fields, he would be permitted to graduate 
without any penalty for his failure in a particular study. * * * * 
Occasionally a student finds it impossible to complete a particular 
subject because of a mortal terror of the instructor. I think this 
is. a sufficient reason for excusing a student, providing he stands 
high in other subjects. Perseverance and intelligence in most of 
a student's work should be counted for more than failure in some 
particular direction." 

Professor W. F. Book of the University of Montana gives his 
opinion thus : "I disapprove of such a rule as you mention in 
your communication of October 17th. I don't believe it is con- 
ducive to mental health to make a student eat something he has 
no taste for and such a rule would give the faculty a leverage 
against the student that would work very badly in those cases 
where the faculty is faulty as is often the case. Let me hear the 
outcome of your inquiry." 

Dr. Edward O. Sisson of the University of Washington says 
in regard to such a rule : "I would say that I do not approve, 
in general of such a rigid rule as the one you mention, except 
upon qualifications concerning which there can be no reas(^nable 
doubt. As to the reason for the rule, I would say that I cannot 



I 



10 TWO COLLEGE RULES 

help feeling that the American college seriously misunderstands 
the maturity and proper self-sufficiency of its students. While 
I would not go as far as the German University does, I would 
lay more stress upon results and much less upon details and ways 
and means. I hope this will not lead to any suspicion of laxity 
or indulgence, for with that I have no sympathy; there again 
the college is at fault. The reason which you give against the 
rule is, I believe, cogent and should apply to some subjects which 
are often required. I know of a case where one student took 
trigonometry three times, failing each time. There is something 
radically wrong with a system that perpetrates such blunders." 

Professor W. S. Sutton of the University of Texas says : "In 
reply please allow me to say I favor the graduation of any 
student who complies with reasonable requirements for gradua- 
tion. I would not consider it reasonable to compel a student to 
finish with credit any course or courses which he might happen to 
elect if the said course or courses should be in addition to those, 
the completion of which would entitle him to a degree. 

'T sometimes fear that the multiplication of academic regu- 
lations tends to perpetuate the feeling that college professors are 
not greatly endowed with practical insight." 

Dr. W. W. Charters, Dean of the School of Education in 
the University of Missouri, says : "In reply I desire to state 
that I would disapprove of such, the chief reason being that very 
frequently a student gets into a course by mistake and finds it 
so utterly to his dislike, and frequently to his inability, that it 
would be a waste of time for him to take the course over again. 
I know of one college where a young woman was compelled to 
study solid geometry over three times before passing it, and then 
she was let through by courtesy. The strong probabilities are 
that she would have been better off if she had allowed the condi- 
tion in solid geometry to have stood against her and completed 
her requirements by taking some other subject." 

Dr. H. H. Home, until recently professor of Education at 
Dartmouth and now in the New York University, after the 
reason for the rule, that a student should for moral and discipli- 
nary reasons complete what he undertakes, says : "Yes, 'should,' 
ideally, but to set up this ideal standard between a college 
student and his graduation is too much like saying *a man 
should keep the moral law in every point before he can hope 



I 



TWO COLLEGE RULES II 

for heaven,' and keep him out if he doesn't. Heaven would be 
too sparsely settled." 

And anent the statement against the rule, that a student may 
find after a half-year or a year that a certain field is not for him 
he says : "Quite true. Further, There's many a slip' between 
the cup of matriculation and the lip of graduation, for which the 
student is not wholly responsible." 

Dr. Charles H. Judd, Director of the School of Education at 
the University of Chicago, writes as follows : "I am in favor of 
allowing a student to graduate without absolving certain of the 
courses in which he may have registered during his residence at 
the college. I think your statement of the reasons against the 
rule is altogether cogent. Our college system is not organized in 
such a way as to give a student an opportunity to become ac- 
quainted in detail with our various courses except by registering 
in them. It seems to me, therefore, that the student should have 
an opportunity to withdraw after his first registration." 

Dr. W. C. Bagley, Director of the School of Education at 
the University of Illinois, gives his opinion as follows : "I beg 
to say that I should not approve of such a rule, provided that 
the student has completed the requisite number of credit hours. I 
believe, however, that the college curriculum should be so con- 
structed and the requirements should be so grouped that it 
would be impossible for a student to secure a degree by merely 
electing 'snap' courses." 

The last witness, the twenty-seventh in all, to be called to 
the stand is Dr. Charles De Garmo of Cornell. He says : "I 
should be opposed to the proposed rule, because I regard the 
welfare of the individual student as superior to artificial stand- 
ards of the university or to straight-laced interpretations of aca- 
demic rules designed for ease in administration. The strict con- 
structionist in the making and enforcement of university regula- 
tions is always with us, but I cannot rejoice in his activity or do 
less than to deplore his influence." 

You will notice that some of these men join me in the sus- 
picion that college professors may make mistakes and may pos- 
sibly be too theoretical and even unjust, with or without malice 
aforethought or conscious intention. 

I tried to get the student point of view on this question and 
submitted the questionaire to a class of ten students in the phil- 



12 TWO COLLEGE RULES 

osophy of education. I asked them to give me their honest 
opinion with reasons, just as if they were to legislate as faculty 
members. I could not, of course, get as independent an opinion as 
I could from the professors of education, for these students knew 
that the University had prescribed such a rule and had no reason 
to think that it did not express my own mind. The consequence 
was that three wrote in defense of the rule, while seven opposed 
it, a decidedly larger percentage for it than in the case of the 
professors of education. 

There was, then, not a single one of the twenty-seven college 
professors, directors and deans who spoke unconditionally in 
favor of such a rule, while twenty-five of them spoke categor- 
ically against it. There were only three out of the ten students in 
education who spoke in favor of it, while the other seven were 
opposed to it, though they were conscious that they were placing 
themselves against the opinion of their instructor and the 
faculty. 

(2). We come now to the other rule which says that no 
student shall be graduated who has not to his credit 125 honor- 
points, or as many as he has semester hours at graduation. 
This means that no student shall be graduated who is not at 
least an average student, C being the average. 

Some years ago I brought before the faculty of the Uni- 
versity of North Dakota a resolution requiring a slightly higher 
per cent — for that was when we marked in per cents — for grad- 
uation than for merely passing a subject; 75 per cent was our 
passing mark and some students were being graduated who had 
received almost invariably, only 75 per cent. It is a well known 
fact, easily explainable psychologically, that if 75 per cent, say, 
be the passing mark, the curve indicating the number of students 
receiving different grades will shoot up abruptly at the 75 per 
cent line. This is because instructors will give the student the 
benefit of the doubt in the neighborhood of the passing mark, and 
so their mercy overflows their justice. They will shirk responsi- 
bility a little and pass the student to avoid future friction. I 
suggested at that time that an average of 78 per cent, or 80 per 
cent be required for graduation, while 75 per cent would pass in 
a specific subject. But the faculty at that time did not take my 
view and so it went by the board. 

During the last year we have gone to the other extreme 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 



13 



and made an average of C, which is, we say, a thoroly sat- 
isfactory grade, necessary for graduation. We say that A and B 
are honor grades, to be given only to the few. Only those of a 
high natural endowment receive them. Many of our best students 
in every sense of the word cannot possibly get A^s and B's no 
matter how hard they work. We say that C is as good as it is 
possible to be and not be an honor student, and yet we say that 
no student will be graduated who has not an average of C. 

It is admitted by the best educational thought, I think, that 
the standard for graduation should be somewhat higher than the 
merely passing grade, so that an institution would not put its 
seal of approval upon merely pass men; that is, those who, on 
account of inability or lack of application and work, never get 
more than a passing mark. Such a principle or rule, I infer, 
does not exist in many of the institutions of the country, but is 
being introduced. The University of North Dakota is conse- 
quently a leader in that line. My claim is that it has gone to an 
extreme which will work injustice to faithful students. It 
is well known that it is the plodding and non-brilliant student 
as often as the brilliant one who makes a success in life. 

Professor Bolton of the University of Iowa says in regard 
to requiring more than a passing mark for graduation : "I firmly 
believe that there should be some quality rating connected with 
the requirement for graduation. We have found in this Uni- 
versity that with the only requirement of 120 hours of work a 
number of students, not usually very large, secured their de- 
grees with exceedingly low averages. They would secure the 
minimum passing grade in a given subject and I presume that 
many instructors gave them this grade really beliveing that the 
mark ought to be 'failed' instead of 'passed.' Each instructor 
thus marking the student would hope that the next instructor 
would give the correct marking and in that way it was possible 
for a certain number to graduate with disreputable averages. We 
have modified our regulations now so that only a small number 
of lowest grade markings can be counted. The rest must be off- 
set by high grade markings." 

And Professor Sisson of the University of Washington says 
on this feature, when dissenting from the first rule : "Better I 
think is a rule requiring candidates for a degree to attain marc 
than a passing mark in a part, say 50 per cent of their credits." 



14 TWO COLLEGE RULES 

The great lack of uniformity in standards and hence in 
grading makes our present rule too arbitrary as well as too exact- 
ing. It may be said that I am pleading for a lowering of the 
standard. Not so; "high standard" and "low standard" are only 
phrases that often beg the whole question. They have neither 
terrors nor charms for me; I neither believe in giving students 
something for nothing nor in making severity and "flunks" an 
affectation. There is as much danger in one direction as the 
other. There is a great lack of uniformity in our grading. 
From a table of grades gotten out last year, some instructors give 
no A*s while the maximum of A's given by an instructor reached 
20 per cent. With the same number of students and in the 
same department, one instructor had no A's and another had 
17 per cent. According to that list about 32 per cent were below 
C and about 2y per cent above. Thus a large percentage of the 
students thus represented could not graduate on that basis. This 
will necessarily drive students into the easier courses and to the 
higher markers, as a refuge. 

There are so many irregularities and so many different stand- 
ards in marking that the rule will undoubtedly work injustice and 
evil in numerous particular and worthy cases. In examining the 
reports of the first semester of the present year I find that C 
was the highest mark given in some classes, the others ranging 
downward to D, E, F, and I. These students in such subjects 
and with such instructors could never be graduated, for there 
were no A's or B's to offset the lower marks. In other classes 
I found that C was the only mark given. These could be grad- 
uated if such average conditions were assumed to be general. In 
still other cases I found that C was the lowest mark given, the 
others being B's, or B's and A's. These could, of course, grad- 
uate with flying colors, if that condition were universalized. I 
have reason to believe, too, that some subjects in which C was the 
highest mark accorded, were in their nature easier subjects than 
where C was the lowest mark given. My point here is that there 
are too many chance and uncertain factors and too much difference 
in standards for us to have any faith in a theoretical average (C) 
of such exaction, as a just criterion. 

The above was from the record. Students report, with sly 
winks, various irregularities which they regard as a joke so long 
as they pass, or so long as no serious issue depends on these 



TWO COLLEGE RULES 15 

markings. But let them be refused graduation on such irregular- 
ities as a basis, and jokes will change to irritation, ill-will and 
denunciation. Let i, 2, 3 and 4 be students and X, Y and Z, sub- 
jects of study. Number i coached Number 2 all the semester in 
X. In the finals Number i got D and Number 2 got C. This 
was a joke, but both boys know which of them was the leader in 
the subject. Number i and Number 3 were coached by Number 
4 all the semester in Y. In the finals Number 4, the coach, got 
an F, while one of the coachee's got a C and the other an E. 
Mere academic or scholastic markings, based merely on recitations 
or quizzes, may be quite wide of the mark as exponents of ability 
and promise. Some instructors may so misconceive the situation 
as to give a D or an E when in their hearts they value the student 
and his work as of C or B grade. Frequently the element of dis- 
cipline is introduced "to bring a student up standing" for some 
petty delinquency which has caused a little trouble. And so let- 
ters like figures may not tell the truth. 

I believe that our former rule was much better, namely: that 
at least half of a students marks must be above D. This makes 
the graduation test somewhat higher than the mere passing mark. 
The line, of course, must be drawn somewhere, but this latter rule 
would impress all concerned, as just, and as accomplishing the 
end we had in view; while our present rule, like the first one dis- 
cussed, does not appeal to the student body, or, I think, to most 
others as just and fair. There is not enough of an escape-valve 
for the mistakes of different standards and possibly for the ill- 
will of instructors. All are human, and to demand an average of 
C for graduation is an extreme in the direction of so-called 
"high standards" which will be an irritating factor that will do 
more evil than good. 

The University of Iowa has properly taken a step in the direc- 
tion of making the requirement for graduation higher, however, 
than the requirement for merely passing the subjects. But they 
have not gone as far as we in the extreme against which I am 
sounding a warning. There they have aii A which, according to 
their wording, is the exact equivalent of ours. The same is true 
of their B and their C. They consider the C, as we do, an aver- 
age. I am inclinel to think that, if there is any difference, our C 
is established in our own minds as above the average, as our 
statistics show. We have been regarding the C as a thoroly 



U.OFN. D. 

(Last two years) 






U. OF IOWA 

(As proposed) 


A-7% 




A— 5% 


B— 22% 


B— 20% 


C— 50% 


C— 44% 


ilJ 




D-18% ^H 


D— 12% 


- ^Hp»a< 


WM E-0% 


E iCond.)— 6% m 




F(Fail('d)-3% 1 




1 


v^uiiu. aiiu raiiei-i / /c m 



The darkened Portion to be offset by A's and B's 



TWO COLLEGE RULES • 17 

satisfactory mark, the highest that anyone, not an honor student, 
can receive. We have below the C only one rating, D, which is 
above the passing line. Now, we say that a student must offset 
every D, which occupies the whole field between passing and 
thoroly satisfactory, with honor points gotten on B's and A's. 
But these are scarce and some students by their very plodding, 
but nevertheless meritorious nature, can never get them. 

The University of Iowa, on the other hand, has two passing 
grades below C. They have a D which is between our D and C, 
and an E which is their passing mark corresponding to our D. 
Our D is made to cover their D and E. Our D's on the aver- 
age are about i8 per cent of all marks. In that case their D's 
would probably be about 12 per cent and their E's about 6 per cent, 
for the per cents decrease downward. They provide that E's 
only (about 6 per cent) shall be offset by B's or A's, while we 
make a student offset what would be their D*s, E's and conditions 
by A's and B's — in all about 25 per cent. (See illustration of our 
present plan and Iowa's plan). Iowa's plan of five grades above 
the passing line or our former plan of four grades with one- 
half above D would cure the defect. 

If our markings were reduced to a system, or scientized, by 
calling C an average, including 50 per cent of all marks, and hav- 
ing about 25 per cent of A's and B's above, and 25 per cent below 
C, it would reduce the injustice by eliminating the irregularities 
due to the personal equation of the teachers, but even then 
the percentage of D's and E's would be too large to be offset by 
A's and B's. According to the previous rule (i) our E's must be 
removed and when removed become D's only. Iowa's plan is 
better, with two grades, D and E, between C and the passing line, 
the E only to be offset by higher marks. 

It would be the part of both wisdom and prudence to recon- 
sider these questions. There are certainly shoals and rocks ahead 
if we keep these rules. We can, of course, juggle with the rules 
and temper the wind to the shorn lamb, but a more just criterion 
would really result in greater good to all interests concerned. 

JOSEPH KENNEDY. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 752 962 3 



1 



